Reddit post apparently related to Clintons email coverup

Ok, it could have been anyone of the people you mention. Then why weren't they arrested if Combetta disclosed this to the FBI? I don't care if he
claimed the they was just the people at his firm, he is implying here someone instructed him to break the law.

They were climbing the chain and reached a dead end. ANOTHER member of that IT firm also received immunity. It's possibly they went to his boss who
directed him and offered immunity to see if he took orders from HRCs staff and found a dead end and it was just that guys bad idea..but he had been
given immunity.

So there are two possibilities. He told the FBI this, but the FBI chose not to press charges on whoever Combetta said the "they" was despite the fact
"they" didn't have immunity.

Other possibilities include they followed it up the chain. they granted another person immunity at the firm (perhaps the guy that told Combetta to do
this)?...and the chain stopped there.

And why are you even posting possible explanations for what might have happened, when your final stance will always be "Well if anything was done
wrong, the FBI and DOJ would have done more" OK we get it, thats your stance.

But if it upsets you to be challenged and would rather enjoy a thread where everyone agrees and no one challenges the evidence, circumstance or
facts..then have it.

everyone can simply say stuff and feel good, affirm their world view and reconcile why their predictions did not come true later..

Do you understand what is happening on this thread?

Unfortunately yes...I am being personally attacked for providing a logical view you disagree with and evidence and logic to support that contrary view
and correcting false claims.

It seems as if you are suggesting that you believe stonetear in his second post, that after he was told what he was doing w=could be illegal by
another reddit user, he claimed he was just looking for a placeholder. Maybe that is not what you believe and you are just saying this could be a
potential story he gives.

There is the truth...and what can be proven and what can be prosecuted.

What we "believe" is not relevant to the outcome.

Speculation is great...but following it up with the "smoking gun" and the "now she is going to jail" stuff is nonsense in light of the evidence.
Whether he was doing something innocuous or something illegal and dishonest..his ass is covered.

What would be your explanation. If he was just looking for a placeholder, why would he then use bleach bit?

The FBI has questioned him on this prior to their conclusion. I don't have that answer...but given that it has been covered by the FBI and charges
were not filed...it's not relevant to outcome.

And more importantly, do you think it is important to get to the bottom of these questions?

Absolutely...

Does that involve challenging theory, claims and evidence?

Or does getting to the bottom involve a bunch of people agreeing and not challenging the claims and evidence stack to see if it survives logic and
scrutiny?

Hell...this thread was off and running for pages and no one bothered to mention that in his second reddit post he claimed he was doing it to protect a
private email address and replace it with a placeholder???

I don't see the intellectual value in that kind of analysis...

And I don't see as it getting to "the bottom" of anything when people just want to be told what they want to hear.

2. Combetta did not tell the FBI he was told to break the law. Now if the FBI finds out that he was in fact told to do so, his immunity would be
scrapped, and he should be arrested for tampering with (and deleting) evidence.

If the Stonetear on reddit is Combetta, it seems to show that he is saying "they" wanted him to do this. This would be enough for the FBI to bring
him in to requestion him on why he told the FBI he acted alone, but says others wanted him to do this on reddit.

Absolutely incorrect.

If Combetta claims he was under "Duress" immunity would still hold up, and the people that caused the duress would go to jail, and/or be in a world
of legal crap.

can prove in a court of law that he is a victim of coercion and signed a contract as he was being threatened indirectly or directly, this is
referred to as a case of duress. For duress to be proved, the victim has to tell the court exact circumstances that were created to make him act in a
way that he or she would otherwise not act in normal circumstances.

I'd say his deletions are evidence of consciousness of guilt for Combetta, in that, he knew he had taken 'an action in furtherance of a conspiracy,'
by even posting the question on Reddit for advice. That posting, alone, makes him a co-conspirator, according to criminal conspiracy statutes.

Now, what/who was behind the request to strip out Hillary's email address is a broader matter that Combetta's action, in deleting those posts,
reflects on, as well.

"Hell...this thread was off and running for pages and no one bothered to mention that in his second reddit post he claimed he was doing it to protect
a private email address and replace it with a placeholder???"

Hell... me too.... and it is....... what happens if you replace HRH@Clintonemail.com with Bugs@Bunny.com?

You avoid any FOIA searches based on your known email of HRH@Clintonemail.com.

Extremely convenient that it took place in July 2014.

Doesn't change the fact that all the emails sent aren't affected and still floating out there and would be subject to FOIA, but it definitely makes it
harder to fulfill any FOIA requests in a timely manner. That is obstruction.

originally posted by: Indigo5
They were climbing the chain and reached a dead end. ANOTHER member of that IT firm also received immunity. It's possibly they went to his boss who
directed him and offered immunity to see if he took orders from HRCs staff and found a dead end and it was just that guys bad idea..but he had been
given immunity.

And that's why this Reddit post is so damning and requires some serious investigation.

If the Reddit post checks out as Combetta's, now we have him saying 'they' wanted to strip out a VIP's email address. 'They' implying more than one
other person.

And we see he was informed that for discovery purposes, it would be illegal. So he knew it was illegal.

Then we have him disassociating with the fact that he was, in fact, dealing with an email archive that was due to be produced to Congress, and he
suggested it was for the purpose of protecting the VIP's email address from becoming public.

But, all the while saying that, he knew that the email archive was being prepared for a discovery request from Congress.

And he still prodded on looking for advice...knowing what he was doing was illegal.

Why on earth would he continue with something he demonstrably knew was illegal? Because he's just really, really so devoted to Hillary he would
knowlingly risk going to prison for tampering with evidence and obstructing justice?

No, no, no. Combetta needs to be questioned because he took that huge risk for a good reason. The most obvious reason is that he had a lot of pressure
on him to tamper with the evidence. It is not even reasonable to assume he knowingly took such a risk simply because he really felt strongly about
protecting the privacy of an email address used by Hillary Clinton that was already public for more than a year.

originally posted by: Indigo5
They were climbing the chain and reached a dead end. ANOTHER member of that IT firm also received immunity. It's possibly they went to his boss who
directed him and offered immunity to see if he took orders from HRCs staff and found a dead end and it was just that guys bad idea..but he had been
given immunity.

And that's why this Reddit post is so damning and requires some serious investigation.

If the Reddit post checks out as Combetta's, now we have him saying 'they' wanted to strip out a VIP's email address. 'They' implying more than one
other person.

And we see he was informed that for discovery purposes, it would be illegal. So he knew it was illegal.

Then we have him disassociating with the fact that he was, in fact, dealing with an email archive that was due to be produced to Congress, and he
suggested it was for the purpose of protecting the VIP's email address from becoming public.

But, all the while saying that, he knew that the email archive was being prepared for a discovery request for Congress.

And he still prodded on looking for advice...knowing what he was doing was illegal.

Why on earth would he continue with something he demonstrably knew was illegal? Because he's just really, really so devoted to Hillary he would
knowlingly risk going to prison for tampering with evidence and obstructing justice?

No, no, no. Combetta needs to be questioned because he took that huge risk for a good reason. The most obvious reason is that he had a lot of pressure
on him to tamper with the evidence. It is not even reasonable to assume he knowingly took such a risk simply because he really felt strongly about
protecting the privacy of an email address used by Hillary Clinton that was already public for more than a year.

Don't disagree with most of it...

But you need to acknowledge that he was granted immunity after this happened and then went on under the umbrella of immunity to have multiple
interviews with the FBI.

Don't you think someone at the FBI thought to ask him if he had tried to tamper with the emails in any way? If he was told to tamper with the emails
in any way? For the love of god...of course they drilled on this...And he had no reason not to be forthcoming with answers as his immunity status
relied on it and he was immune from being prosecuted. I don't see a scenario where the reddit postings are revelation to the FBI. Those postings are
likely the precise reason he asked for immunity....So he could answer whether he tried or succeeded in altering the emails and if so at whose
direction. Those were likely questions he was asked and answered in the first five minutes of the multiple interviews. If he was intending to lie or
hold back with the FBI, he wouldn't have requested immunity and he would not risk prison time when he had a blanket pass as long as he was
truthful.

We will see if this shakes out differently...but that is what logic dictates here.

They were climbing the chain and reached a dead end. ANOTHER member of that IT firm also received immunity. It's possibly they went to his boss who
directed him and offered immunity to see if he took orders from HRCs staff and found a dead end and it was just that guys bad idea..but he had been
given immunity.

Wait, weren't you the person saying you were just pointing out facts, not giving your theories. Can you show me anywhere the FBI claiming anything
remotely like this?

The only other person I see that got immunity was Pagliano, do you have links to another? Was Pagliano Combettas boss? I don't see evidence of that.
Seeing as how you have no evidence of the FBI claiming this is what happened, are you suggesting Combetta got immunity and said "Pagliano told me to
do it" and then they gave Pagliano immunity and he admitted "Yep it was all my idea" This seems more far fetched than what we are suggesting
happened.

Also Stonetear said "they" wanted this done, implying more than just one person. So if only one other person was granted immunity, there must be at
least a second that ordered it that should be arrested.

Other possibilities include they followed it up the chain. they granted another person immunity at the firm (perhaps the guy that told Combetta to do
this)?...and the chain stopped there.

Answered above. If that is what happened, don't you think that Comey should come out and tell the public that? Why not mention this?

But if it upsets you to be challenged and would rather enjoy a thread where everyone agrees and no one challenges the evidence, circumstance or
facts..then have it.

everyone can simply say stuff and feel good, affirm their world view and reconcile why their predictions did not come true later..

Your opinions are welcomed and encouraged. What is silly when you just fall back to in the end "If something was there the FBI would have done
something." This isn't constructive at all. The rest of what you are saying is very constructive.

Unfortunately yes...I am being personally attacked for providing a logical view you disagree with and evidence and logic to support that contrary view
and correcting false claims.

What attacks? Wow you are thin skinned. You are doing things like saying you are just posting facts and quoting the second reddit post. Then you
ask where things I am saying are quoted.

I was pointing out people on this thread are trying to piece the story together based on the info we have. You know, like you did at the top of
this post. Why is it ok for you to do this but not me?

No one is saying you shouldn't challenge opinions.

There is the truth...and what can be proven and what can be prosecuted.

What we "believe" is not relevant to the outcome.

Speculation is great...but following it up with the "smoking gun" and the "now she is going to jail" stuff is nonsense in light of the evidence.
Whether he was doing something innocuous or something illegal and dishonest..his ass is covered.

How do you know he is covered? If he violated the terms of his immunity, he is not. This was covered over and over be me and other posters, either
he violated his immunity and can be arrested (or as was pointed out he did so under duress and then the ones threatening him can be charged) or the
FBI is covering something up.

The FBI has questioned him on this prior to their conclusion. I don't have that answer...but given that it has been covered by the FBI and charges
were not filed...it's not relevant to outcome.

Gotcha! No point questioning anything folks! The FBI looked into it, everything is good. I mean the fact that members of the House sent out a
letter wanting to interview Combetta and others as a result of this reddit investigation means nothing. We should all just mind our own business, the
FBI knows best and they know nothing happened.

Absolutely...

Does that involve challenging theory, claims and evidence?

Or does getting to the bottom involve a bunch of people agreeing and not challenging the claims and evidence stack to see if it survives logic and
scrutiny?

YES!!!!! Thats the irony here! We have the Hillary camp and her buddies in the MSM telling us there is nothing to see here, the FBI took care of it,
move along. We are the challenging claims, theories and evidence.

You then are challenging those claims with some of your own. Thats good! But then you fall back to saying "Well if anything was a big deal, the FBI
would have done more". Can't you see that is exactly what you are criticizing?

Hell...this thread was off and running for pages and no one bothered to mention that in his second reddit post he claimed he was doing it to
protect a private email address and replace it with a placeholder???

I don't see the intellectual value in that kind of analysis...

And I don't see as it getting to "the bottom" of anything when people just want to be told what they want to hear.

Thats not true, his second post was mentioned. The majority of this thread has been focused on the fact that he said "they" wanted this done,
implying he was told to do this. That is the new info.

The reason the second reddit posts wasn't focused on is that it doesn't matter if he was just trying to put in a placeholder or not, because we know
what he ended up doing, deleting everything with bleach bit! He got away with this because he had immunity, and so it stopped with him.

The question is were others involved. How does the second reddit post have anything to do with answering that question?

People are trying to find the truth here. For example, on this thread it came up that Stonetaer may have posted on another site that his employer had
Parkinson's. The people on here looked into it, and determined that this was most likely a hoax. If we were only interested in bashing Hillary, why
would we go through to trouble of fact checking these things?

Thanks. My mind kept circling back around to Combetta's 11th hour deletions as a possible admittance of guilt that he hadn't been totally honest with
the FBI, and I couldn't move beyond that conclusion to see other options. I realized I was being obtuse, but I was stuck in that mindset. I still feel
like I'm overlooking or not comprehending some aspects of this latest development so am following this thread with great interest. a reply to:
MotherMayEye

But you need to acknowledge that he was granted immunity after this happened and then went on under the umbrella of immunity to have multiple
interviews with the FBI.

Don't you think someone at the FBI thought to ask him if he had tried to tamper with the emails in any way? If he was told to tamper with the emails
in any way? For the love of god...of course they drilled on this...And he had no reason not to be forthcoming with answers as his immunity status
relied on it and he was immune from being prosecuted. I don't see a scenario where the reddit postings are revelation to the FBI. Those postings are
likely the precise reason he asked for immunity....So he could answer whether he tried or succeeded in altering the emails and if so at whose
direction. Those were likely questions he was asked and answered in the first five minutes of the multiple interviews. If he was intending to lie or
hold back with the FBI, he wouldn't have requested immunity and he would not risk prison time when he had a blanket pass as long as he was
truthful.

We will see if this shakes out differently...but that is what logic dictates here.

I am with you he was given immunity after this. I also agree they asked him the questions. Heck, I can do better than that, I can prove the
discussed it. Combetta admitted he did more than just tamper with emails, he deleted the emails with full knowledge it was illegal. This was shone
in the "Oh S##t" document that was disclosed by the FBI.

I will take your analysis a step further. I guarantee when Combetta admitted to the FBI that he deleted these emails, one of the FBI's first
questions would have been "Did you act alone, or were you ordered to tamper with these emails?"

If he said others ordered him, why did the FBI not go after those others, and why didn't the FBI let the public know this reasoning?

If he didn't mention others telling him do to that, then why is that what he is claiming in this reddit thread, and then why is he trying to delete
evidence of that thread once it became public? If he withheld information, his immunity could be taken away, and the FBI could then reopen the
investigation and go after the others that ordered him given this new information.

The thing that doesn't add up to me is this: If the FBI knew about his posting history (and I simply can't believe they did not) and if they were
involved in a cover up, then why would they not have deleted or told him to delete his posting history a long time ago. It doesn't make sense...

Unless...

The FBI left this out there because they are tired of being shackled by Lynch and the DoJ in this case. Comey saying what he said about how Hillary's
actions, if committed by somebody else, could easily result in a different outcome still resonates with me as his way of saying "Hey, my hands are
tied, what do you want me to do about it?"

originally posted by: Indigo5
Don't you think someone at the FBI thought to ask him if he had tried to tamper with the emails in any way? If he was told to tamper with the emails
in any way? For the love of god...of course they drilled on this...And he had no reason not to be forthcoming with answers as his immunity status
relied on it and he was immune from being prosecuted. Id don't see a scenario where the reddit postings are revelation to the FBI.

Oh, this is a revelation, for the public anyway. Especially if the other person granted immunity was a co-conspirator, as you suggested.

Why? Because the other person granted immunity was Bryan Pagliano:

Bryan Pagliano, a former campaign staff member for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, who was granted immunity in exchange for
answering questions about how he set up a server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., around the time she became secretary of state in
2009.

This may not be a revelation for the FBI and if it isn't, then this is incriminating evidence the FBI is involved in a conspiracy to a obstruct
justice.

If the order came from outside Platte River to tamper with the email archive -- from Brian Pagliano -- why did he inject himself into this discovery
request from Congress and ask Combetta to do such a thing?

Certainly, this would be evidence of a cover up stemming from the Client-side. And that cannot be brushed away. Congress asked about evidence of
intent. If Brian Pagliano ordered Combetta to alter the email addresses -- not anyone's except Hillary's -- then that is damning, solid evidence of a
cover-up, and therefore 'intent.'

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.